onepiecefandomcom-20200222-history
One Piece Wiki talk:Community Portal
Archives: 1, 2 __TOC__ Setting up a schedule Well as we all know the big news is hitting everywhere that the reigns are being taken over and FUNimation now are producing the anime. They are releasing the first eps on TV in August. So with that in mind, we REALLY need to get cracking here. I'm out for uni related things (like my end of course Open Show) for the next 4 weeks. But I want to get a schedule set up. Every week between now and the release date will be taken up by brings things up to standard. Its no good if the show turns out to be a blast and we're a runt of a site. Its time to open up our minds to possibilities. List of things we need to schedule: *Redoing our Main page. *Redoing our Community Portal. *Redoing and bringing up to date our Current Events page. *I want the Community Cafe to have a new look. *General site theme. *Character pages *Seeing what we need and don't need *All chapters from manga and episodes from anime pages brought up to snuff. *All movie pages brought up to snuff. *VA and Japanese VAs redesigned. *Deletion of unneeded pages *Merging of pages *Bring the profiles of crew, DF and characters alike up to date. *Site advertisement we are not putting this off any longer! By the start of the release date, we need to have this sites name put around. I don't care if we only stick it in our sigs on forums. Its better then nothing! The schedule should start from this Monday. If we all sit here and work to the goal, we can bring it up to date. One-Winged Hawk 11:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Dates The schedule dates: *April 16, 2007 Everything related to 4kids must be merged to 4kids, that includes 4Kids Edits, 4Kids Story Alterations and 4Kids Entertainment (Joekido 11:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) Adding to this, heres a plan from me, others may have different ideas: *April 23, 2007 - Tidying up all the anime related articles. Everything 4Kids must must be burned at the stake, peed on and burried in a thick layer of cement... Er... I mean... closed and all information checked for correctness. One side note: Its time we check our main Straw Hats crew pages are complete and no important stuff is missing. *April 30, 2007 - Discussion of revamped pages and beginning to put together an advertising plan for the site. We need a theme, we talk and discuss. As for editing - relook at the movies pages and well as all pirate crew pages. *May 7, 2007 - After redoing crew pages, it is time to look at the crew members. We need to have every crew member with a template and linked to crew pages and vice versa. *May 14, 2007 - All the other people in OP. End discussion of themes and revamps. Check all Devil Fruit Pages. *May 21, 2007 - End of discussion for advertisement. Release rough designs for revamped pages. *May 28, 2007 - First 50 chapters of manga brought up to date. Pick of designs for site *June 4, 2007 - 50 - 100 chapters of manga brought up to date. *June 11, 2007 - 100 - 150 chapters of manga brought up to date. *June 18, 2007 - 150 - 200 chapters. *June 25, 2007 - 250 -300. *July 2, 2007 - 300- 350. *July 9, 2007 - 350 - 400. Stop with manga here for enow. *July 16, 2007 - Go over ALL VAs Japanese and English. *July 23, 2007 - complete design of site revamping. *July 30, 2007 - Check over Video game pages *August 6, 2007 Its a harsh schedule I know... But if we all concentrate on each section listed we should get things done faster. If we're ahead we can do things earlier. I designed this schedule to have things done at a steady place. Others can rework it. One-Winged Hawk 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC) :If you're re-doing the Main Page, feel free to ask me for any graphical improvements you want. On a side note, perhaps the Forum system should be setup here. This talkpage is pretty cluttered. ~Dantman-local(talk|local) May 13, 2007 @ 11:55 (UTC) Its beginning to notice... It struck me reading some articles and their wikipedia counterparts. (no nag about wikipedia intended here). How different the articles are shaping to their Wikipedia counterparts. While Wikipedia is full of unwanted cruff all over the place our pages are a lot more organised. And the content is slowly morphing into a very different look. Example is our Thriller Bark creatures part and the thriller Bark counterpart page on wikipedia... Our is now fully organised after 3 major reorganisations... Wikipedia's is on its first and beginning to crumble here and there on many minor things. The number of contributions is higher then ever on wikipedia, but then again, even though we're not really putting much effort into things, we're attracting more IP addresses and slowly more registered members. BTW I have the main page 1 example basic shell done... I didn't put it together on wikia though, I wrote the coding on notebook. I'm gonna assemble it on Wednesday. Its split into separate parts so I don't know how it will come together. I couldn't think writing straight into the wikia. One-Winged Hawk 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Which is what I was trying to do; to move this site away from Wikipedia counterpart and restart many articles to rewrite them to an original format. Just look at what I did at the Aokiji page, I reorganize the page to make an original format. Back in Oct, many articles were ripped from the Wikipedia site and was pasted here which made me very upset and I tried to fix it yet I had problems.... errr.... Better to forget that before I become a grouch. Anyway, the Aokiji page is good example to make this site original, by restarting and rewriting many articles. The Wikipedia version is plain and cheap, the Thriller Bark section over there is boring and poorly settled up. This Thriller Bark Creatures is much, much better. Now if we are to pull OP Wikia away from being a Wikipedia clone, you must agree to join my "restart and rewrite" project. {Joekido 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)} :We have the advantage of being able to hold attacks and other such details. Which kinda helps our cause. I don't think we'll be able get completely away from wikipedia, after all how many ways are there of writing some bits of info such as bounties and so forth? :Also although I complain about those ads to the right, the thinner text space on the page makes the contents look bulker then they are. Which I noticed the other day not only helps a page look like it has more on it, but also aids us somewhat in looking neater. The best example on this probably the Red-Haired Shanks page. Its wikipedia counterpart looks scruffy. Yet they both hold the same info more or less. Its just the width of the pages... It creates a certain illusion. :BTW Jo, I understand the words "boring and poorly set up" - Since I was the one who set that page up. ^-^' :Which is a bad reflection considering I can do really fancy stuff when I'm left to my own freedom. But I forgot to create a sandbox version of that page (wikipedia rules) and they nabbed the page for deletion before I had finished so I had to get as many people as I could to get it set up in a hurry. How we pulled it off in the end is anyone's guess. :But since then nothings been done except adding stuff to it. I wanted to rewrite it but didn't in the end due to the only other way I could think of rewriting it would end up as a clone of ours. And I didn't want to fall back into wikipedia cloned pages again due to my previous comments about how we're slowly moving away. One-Winged Hawk 06:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC) ::All I gotta say is there are some things and pages in Wikipedia that are messy and such. I saw the Thriller Bark page in wikipedia and while it's still a starter, I must say it may not become at least as good as Thriller Bark Creatures considering a vast majority of the creatures are minor cannon fodder which may not all live up to Wikipedia's notability rule. However, there are some stuff in Wikipedia that are good despite the mess I must say. Some them actually look better than ours. In the end, I guess it all comes down on evaluating which information is better suited for knowledge despite the flaws.Mugiwara Franky 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) :::I've noticed all the hours I spent putting refs on wikipedia has amounted to nothing... People delete the refs and don't add new ones. Their crew pages are better but I never transferred the data over. Right at the start when we first began I kinda forgot. And now I don't just want to transfer the data over from wikipedia anymore. I mean, then it was okay... Now it seems well... Arkward because we are trying not to be a clone of wikipedia. O.o' :::I must say Joekido though... Isn't a template calling for a rewrite extreme? One-Winged Hawk 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Protection Okay its been hit by Anti-4Kids stuff too much. Can we have the 4Kids page protected or semi-protect against IP users. You won't stop the anti guys from flaming it... But you can limit the scope of attackers. And thats what I want done. I wish they'd keep neutral or just go away. -_-' One-Winged Hawk 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC) :Also protect related pages... And I'm sorry for blanking those pages. It was easier to deal with the vandal if I blanked them and readded them later. I had to fight him somehow. One-Winged Hawk 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Pages Blanked as Anti-Vandal Measure This is all I can do to fight him, POages I've had to blank: *Monkey D. Luffy *4Kids *Alfred R. Kahn‎ *Talk:4Kids I'll note what I blank. We'll have to go back in the history section to fix this later. For the FIRST time, I wish I had banning powers. One-Winged Hawk 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC) :*Phew* he has temp. departed. I've reverted them back now. I'll repeat this if he returns until he is banned. I won't let him win his little game, but I won't play it either. One-Winged Hawk 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Help... This is One-Winged Hawk... I can't log in. I mean enter my username and password, log in, but when I go anywhere I'm logged out automatically. T_T I know before that it wouldn't let me make any changes to the site and said I have to log off and on again. Something about a server cache and or loss of data session. Anyone know whats going on here? 82.34.192.189 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC) (very distressed One-Winged Hawk) :Any details on your browser, settings, etc... Did you check off the Remember me? Either way could have some issue. But like it instructed, did you try logging out then in again? ~Dantman-local(talk|local) May 13, 2007 @ 11:52 (UTC) ::Weird I've come on expecting to still be logged off and I'm logged on suddenly. You know, I had this same prob yesterday... One-Winged Hawk 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :::I seem to be having the same problem also. User:Mugiwara Franky not logged on :Yesterday someone in IRC said they were having this problem. They said that it had happened 6 months ago then fixed itself in another day or two. Don't worry, it's an intermittent problem, you can probably fix something like this by trying another browser or something temporarily and by the next day it should start working again. Also, the techs should now about this and are probably trying to solve it... It's definitely not much to what bugs you may be complaining about when the MW 1.10a upgrade hits here. ~Dantman-local(talk) May 14, 2007 @ 08:51 (UTC) ::(One-Winged Hawk - again) For over four hours I kept trying to post this same message... I've lost the message now. Basically this is hitting me hard, I can't edit as much as I want to. I've been trying to get the main page sorted, but all I can do is minor edits here and there right now. ::This is happening every day right now, I got about 2 hours of break from it today. Then it was back again in a heartbeat. I had to wait 2 hours to change Jango's page. It lets me edit... If I'm not logged in though it seems. 82.34.192.189 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) :::I've heard from some users that clearing out all your cookies may help. ~Dantman-local(talk) May 19, 2007 @ 07:20 (UTC) Using Youtube Videos Umm, for those that have youtube accounts and videos. Would it be okay to use this code for some situations like this. Luffy defeats Lucci with New World Symphony Background a7b4UqxWb2A The full instructions can be found here.Mugiwara Franky 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) :This could be great help in those situations that may require more than one frame and music to prove a point. Like how some rokushiki moves are performed.Mugiwara Franky 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) ::You'll half to limit how much you use. There's a limit to what Fair use laws will let you do, that is especially the case with Anime and videos. Most videos would be best as shorter than that one to comply. Also note, Fair use laws only apply to the Article namespace. So it's a Fair use violation to place those in Userpages, talkpages, etc... same with fair use images. ~Dantman-local(talk) May 14, 2007 @ 14:37 (UTC) :::I'm against YouTube usage due to their habits of just deleting stuff. One-Winged Hawk 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Info on Merchandise I'm going to get it onto the pages... Examples of One Piece merchandise. Thats one of my missions for the Summer. Basically, I want an overview of figures released for each character (not all, but a good idea on what has been issued) page. I'll be doing Luffy's soon as an example. I don't know if this will work. (OW-Hawk) 82.34.192.189 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Making Real Life Pirates Legit Well I finally got round to visiting the library and have with me a collection of pirate books. So since I have them for 2 or 3 weeks now, I'm gonna put some legitimacy into our real life pirate pages. I'll also see from reading these books if I can strengthen our links to the One Piece characters. Bu t my primary goal is to make those pages legit so we never have to worry about them again. One-Winged Hawk 11:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Books Okay a list of books I have. #''Pirates'' fact or fiction by David Cordingly and John Falconer. ISBN no. 1-85585-108-3. #''Pirates'' Adventurers of the High Seas by David F. Marley. ISBN no. 1-95409-215-4 #''The Pirate Wars'' by Peter Earle. ISBN no. 0-413-75900-8. #''Captain Kidd'' and the war against the pirates by Robert C. Ritchie. ISBN no. 0-674-09501-4. #'The mammoth book of' '' Pirates. Edited by Jon E. Lewis. ISBN-13 no. 978-1-84529-115-0 and ISBN-10 no. 1-84529-115-8. Chapter title "Blackbeard: Captain Charles Johnson." #'A general history of the robberies & murders of the most notorious''' Pirates Captain Charles Johnson with an introduction and commentary by David Cordingly. ISBN no. 0-85177-919-0. Chapter: The life of Captain Teach. #''Pirates an illustrated history of privateers, buccaneers and pirates from the the sixteenth century to the present. '' Consultant Editor David Corningly. ISBN no. 0-86101-872-9. A general history of the robberies & murders of the most notorious Pirates Captain Charles Johnson with an introduction and commentary by David Cordingly. : This is the most important of these books as a lot of other books list this as one of the source books (published originally in 1724). This one is the most valuable to the site as its a survey of various pirates and is one of the reasons why Blackbeard and Captain Kidd are so famous. If I can I'll purchase another copy of this book so someone at hand always has a copy to contribute to this site. :) I'm actually killing two birds with one stone... Lets just say I'm using this as a double source for some other project I'm writing that I hope will bare fruit. One-Winged Hawk 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Done!!! Talk:Main_Page_Design_1 Well opinions, suggestions, etc can now be spoken! Its a done! One-Winged Hawk 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Scrolling text I know it sounds odd to suggest, but it might be a good idea to add scrolling text boxes on some of the longer section of text like on the Personnelly and relationships section. Save on space. Or on the longer "Battles" sections. :/ One-Winged Hawk 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC) :Example: Monkey D. Luffy :It actually works rather well, but can only be used successfully on longer pages with restrictions. :/ One-Winged Hawk 22:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::Yes it could work that way. It depends on how one uses the box.Mugiwara Franky 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) :Originally I thought histories sections could be done, they can but you have to ditch the pictures. They don't work with pictures at all... It was looking at Luffy's particularly long one... Guess other sections are fine. We should cut that section down, no need to retell the info on chapters and story arc pages really. One-Winged Hawk 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::Um cutting down on some parts of the history section maybe good idea I guess. However let's kinda be reminded that this is wikia that has possibilities that can't be done in Wikipedia. Take a look at the Anakin on Wookiepedia or Goku on the Dragon Ball Wikia. They're both incredibly long yet they're pretty good. On Wikipedia, these good articles would immediately be tagged and scrunched up into smaller articles completely different from what they were. I'm not saying cutting information is not a good idea, I'm saying let's try to use our freedom and aim for articles like those.Mugiwara Franky 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) :::Yeah I know, but its the way we're handling the info I'm looking at right now. I don't want to loose anything, we if we can sum up events in a few sentences it might be worth considering since we have that massive text section there. I know what the effects of solid blocks of text can do to a reader. :::The alternative is to make each individual SECTION of the histories bit into a scrolly thing, that way the pictures stay together with their master text section. :) One-Winged Hawk 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Nope... Can't do that either. The image covers some of the text no matter what. One-Winged Hawk 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::::After much fiddling, apparently you can: Monkey_D._Luffy#Romance_Dawn :::::Umm, just a question. Does there seem to be a problem when one tries to edit that section because when try to edit it to at least preview something, I'm given a different section to edit than the one I want to edit.Mugiwara Franky 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::::It seems to also happen on other sections on my end.Mugiwara Franky 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::::From Relationships section to downwards the links to individually edit a single section seem to be messed up on my end. Also when I try to edit the stuff in the relationship section like Ace, it just goes to the Template's edit screen.Mugiwara Franky 01:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::Maybe we should rethink this.Mugiwara Franky 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::Er... Yeah I noticed that last night (had presumed it was a fault with the wikia itself but now sees it wasn't...). Rethink needed. Dam. Okay seeing since what happens if we don't include the subtitles in it because that is what I think is causing the problem. Their inside the scrolling box and kinda don't count as they do normally. Okay bare with me as I fiddle about with this today. :( One-Winged Hawk 07:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::I was right... Its fixed. So The restriction left now is: We can't include subtitles or titles. Otherwise its fine to refer everything into scrolling boxes. One-Winged Hawk 07:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC) I really don't think it's a good idea, would that make the articles ugly? We don't need Scroll box in every single long articles Joekido 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :After playing around with a Luffy cloned page I now agree. It's only good, on lists like "Vs" stuff and references. You use it on anything else and it looks bad. It also looked good with the relationships bit but due to the problem with the titles and subtitles it can't be done. :/ One-Winged Hawk 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Slapping Wrists Minor crib. The term "many fans" shouldn't be used here. For one, many fans suggest every language is included. I just changed "Many fans" on the Zoro page to "Many English Fans". Strictly speaking, we should avoid "many" but I don't want to go that far... And its 00:23 where I am so I can't be bothered to write around the problem in the Zoro page case...Z_Z One-Winged Hawk 23:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Abolish 4 Strike rule Yes, this seems to be a rush but I think we need to repeal the 4 Strike rule because judging by how the past vandal being going, the 4 Strike is being taken to lightly and no vandal is gonna read the warning and say "OMG! I've been boned!/Gonna be boned!" so we need to make a new stricter rule. 1. Anyone who just change texts in a vandal way and have been warned 1 or 2 times should get a 1 month ban. If he comes back and does it again should get a 2 month ban, again would be 3 months, again he should be banned forever. 2. A person will only get 2 warnings, if he ignores the 2nd warning will get a monthly ban Now here is the list of rules and determined which kind of vandal does a person deserve. Forever Ban *Creating nonsense vandal pages or making a nonsense edit *Putting spam messages in 2 pages or creating a spam page that links to illegal sites or porn sites. *Creating massive vandal *Threating to kill a member *Posting sexual pictures or gross pictures or porn pictures *Anyone who does these this above on 2 different pages deserve a forever ban I know this sounds harsh, however we need to realize that if something is not working, we should create a newer rule. We may need to make the rules stricter just to get the vandal to take us seriously or just ban them if they don't listen to us. Joekido 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC) :Well the original rules work on the similar warning system to wikipedia. You raise points. I'll support them. To be honest though, I am quite ill today so I can't really think straight. But I have noticed the difficultly of dealing with vandals. We've had... What 5 major vandals now. One-Winged Hawk 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The story begin this morning when 97.97.23.147 once again wrote "lutz" and "sex machine" in the Tony Tony Chopper page, I was finally fed up, I wrote in the discussion page asking if he had read the message and decided that he needed to get banned and it's the time we fuck the 4 strike rule and get serious. Back in Nov 2006, I originally made a rules of banning but someone dismiss it as "too harsh" But now we got 5 vandal, a Users to be Banned page and we been using the 4 strike rule too long and what has it ever done? Nothing. All the 4 strike rule does is make a vandal smirk instead of going "Oh Noes". Hell, if you look at the Muppet Wikia, the administrators are almost everywhere every day, if they spot one vandal, they ban the user right away without warning but most of the ban would be only month, week, or day but often forever, they don't need to wait for someone to nominate an user to be banned. Sure they warn, but only once or twice. Now as a One Piece Wikia, it's time we make our rule system stronger and better. It's time we have that User to be Banned page be deleted, it's time the administrator take full responsibility to ban the user who is breaking the rule. MF, BF and Justyn is not blind, they can tell there is a vandal walking around and deal with them ASAP with or without warning. No need There is no need for anyone to write "In chapter XXX..." when you can reference things. If anyone sees this on a page, you should know how to remove it. Please do. I write them out when I spot them myself. Also take out anything like "Recently..." that is included alongside a text. How recent is recent? One chapter ago? Ten chapters ago? In the case of Sengoku, recently meant about 20 chapters ago which was about 4 or so months ago by our time (not the OP world). See my point? One-Winged Hawk 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Ok Joekido 10:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Uber massive merger at Wikipedia I noticed this going over at Wikipedia and I'm a bit appalled at what is happening. Considering I have not been editing there, I will not voice my opinions there as I have no credit. However, I will state my view here. Basically "The idea is completely overboard!!!". It's maybe okay to merge one or two character stubs at Wikipedia since they may not have a chance at growing. But it is not okay to merge almost nearly every character of a series. So they don't have good real world references or stuff but they at least expand on a story that clearly can't be contained in one single page. At least the major notable characters like the Straw Hats, Shanks, Teach, and others deserve a page. I also don't like the idea that's being spread around about this wikia. The idea I'm seeing prominently is basically use this wikia as dump site instead of an extension. I see sentences like "Move article X info to the wikia because article X is not suitable for Wikipedia". Those sentences don't support the wikia in my point of view, they just state that wikia is a dump site. I may have arguments over what should be merged over here but only when merging is a good idea in some cases. And from what I can tell from what is happening in Wikipedia, that is not a good case. It will only make the One Piece articles over there more crappier than already are.Mugiwara Franky 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) :I see sentences like "Move article X info to the wikia because article X is not suitable for Wikipedia". Those sentences don't support the wikia in my point of view, they just state that wikia is a dump site. :That is scary actually considering what work has gone on here, its practically saying we're a trash site. The idea of the site is to take the strain of fanism off wikipedia and allow the data to expand beyond what the rules of wikipedia allow but at the same time allow the fans to get what they want from it without resulting to fanism. In other words, we're a One Piece Encyclopedia and I'd like us to stay that way! One-Winged Hawk 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) :Article being talked about found here along with it's corresponding talk page The half of me understood of that and your option of such matter of what is happening in Wikipedia, the half of me would say that you liked to merge right? Sure Wikipedia is extreme however I felt that some merging process is insane as well here. We must be careful not to make the merging system go to high. Joekido 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) :Only sensible mergers I support. Insensible mergers I don't support. :A sensible merger in this wikia, would be merging all parts of a ship, or related items like the sub species of an animal that appeared in one movie. :An insensible merger in this wikia, would be merging all the ships together or merging all the animals together.Mugiwara Franky 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Bingo, I support that point. I hate insensible merger but sensible merger is allowed so I'll put that in this Wikia's rule book. Joekido 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ::Gave TTN a what fore.I don't see any of the guys arguments-he basicly wants REAL WORLD INFO on a fiction series. User:New Babylon Oh... Not wikipedia again! I thought we'd agree we weren't discussing that here? Oh wells, might as well put my 2p in. I'd like someone to actually do some work on wikipedia. I'm only in support of it because no one does anything. All the major editors are long gone except Justyn (who only seems to ever see the "keep thing the same way" side of things), Geg (who only does eps now and a few other things) and myself. TTN is a general wikipedian, sadly he is extreme but he does have a place on wikipedia; no is on one wikipedian I know who gets a discussion going on the state and quality of any page. For that much I do admire him, his extremism I don't however and would loved him to come up with a lots less extreme version. I'd like just a redirect to the crew pages, there is no need for a single massive pages cluttered up with characters. A single page of the entire crew... They support each other, a whole page of characters is a mess. I'd like another way myself other then mergers on wikipedia... But I couldn't even get a project going on them to help things along... the other thing is, I know full dam well those who are anti-merger aren't going to improve the pages so someone doesn't have to question them in 6 months time and we waste yet more time going over them again. As for real world arguments... Thats EASY to do (Documentaries, interviews and reviews). But as I said, no one will do it (blowed if I'm going to be the poor sod who sits there looking through every topic of AP because I know I'd end up doing it alone). Though to be honest, I only take this stance because someone once accused me of trying to own the pages... So I said "Blow it, let some other mug do the work!". Hey, I was doing my job as a wikipedian; making sure the pages were quality checked. In those days before I got accused of this, I took the stance "If no one else will do it who will?" and alas I was very right. I'm determined to get the point across that this is the 4th time we've called to question the pages in a year and I'd like something done. I'm telling you guys though... Every wikipedia One Piece page is coming off my watch list if the merger doesn't go ahead and in a months time the pages are the say sorry mess they were. (I'm actually glad in some respects there isn't a lot of editors there as we'd end up like Naruto pages were). :/ Now someone put a link to a rule because someone mentioned us. "Referring to and using the One piece wiki as a base for the template, which basically uses wikipedia as the new host for One Piece wiki (against the rules)". Wikipedia and us are now apart, our "templating" of the pages looks a lot different to wikipedias now, sure in the beginning it looked the same... But we had nothing else to go by and only had a choice of "take whats there or nothing". In a year we've become what the wikipedian pages aren't. I find this a little annoying because someone is reading the responses wrongly now and we've been dragged into the thing the wrong way. And there you go... my say on the matter. And now my hand hurts from typing all that! Lol. One-Winged Hawk 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) :While I can assume good faith in TTN's actions and can see the point to some of it, I am however rather appalled on how he apparently seems to be viewing this wikia and other wikias in general. It seems that rather than helping out, he seems to rather want to throw things away than do anything. :It's true that we are now different from wikipedia, but the basis of the merger proposal appears to based on this wikia's existence. It's almost like a big sign saying "If you want to read/write about One Piece, then go to this place because Wikipedia isn't the place to learn about anything about the subject" or something along those lines. It's basically a big detour sign promoting the wikia which is against Wikipedia's rules and bad for this wikia's reputation. This wikia should be the place where one can say "If you want to read/write more about One Piece, then go to this place because it covers some more in dept information than what Wikipedia can offer" or something along that lines, and I'm not talking only about fanism here. :In any case, a large scale merger like that can be really bad for both Wikipedia's One Piece articles and this wikia.Mugiwara Franky 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I had to agree, this Wikia should be a place where people can read and write about One Piece and not just say "Okay, we have a One Piece Wikia and everything here is token from One Piece Wikipedia so I'm going to change everything and merge everything in one page so people would read and say 'golly gee, the information is bad here so let's go to OP Wikia' " which is a bad idea. Star Wars Wikia is enjoyable because it's not just a fan site nor is it a subject to fanism and we want OP Wikia to be at the same enjoyable level as Wookiepedia. I think I have to voice my comment over there. Someone needs to tel TTN that he does not need to promote this site. While I'm thankful for his attempt to support this site, I believe he's not doing it right and would make this site a laughstock of other Wikia community. Joekido 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) :I wouldn't worry about TTN. He has built up a reputation for being a bit too far and others are looking for an excuse to have silenced forever. I've been wondering why it hasn't happened sooner. But he has gone overboard lately. The trouble is that TTN's means simply don't justify his cause a lot of the time. Another wikipedian "Artist Formerly Known As Who Cares" has though pretty much summed up well the reaction of the OP fans on the merger matter. A lot of people simply aren't admitting to a lot of valid points that is cusing the problem. :I'm on NB's side with the mergers for the most part. If you read back on previous mergers, what NB says is more or less what I've always said give or take a few words. The only difference is I recon everything can afford to be only 3 or 4 paragraphs long character-wise, even the straw hats... But this comes from looking at other well-established wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is suppose to be the start of your research but you won't get everything you need from it. Fan-things like trivia simply don't have a place there. :For the most part though, the initial screaming and whining session is over. I have a headache (metaphorically speaking) from this. I'm trying not to let TTN push me into something I don't want my name attached to again, yet I want something done. One-Winged Hawk 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) ::For those here who haven't been at the discussion, I'll summarise what I said:NO ONE but TTN wants the merger to take place and enforcing it solely by constant bitc*ing and repetitiveness of the same, non specified and at the very least DEBATABLE argument OVER AND OVER again till people just get annoyed and stop opposing him so he can enforce this,when everyone gets sick of arguing with him.......is just DUMB!(let a lot of steam out here, but I think its my best summarization of the subject yet) User:New Babylon In case no one notice, I posted my comment there under the username Edwardadrian Joekido 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Problem arising After the merge on wikipedia I don't really want to see them here too (I'd like to escape the one on wikipedia). But it has come to my attention that a problem is arising... Dead End Pages. That is, pages with one link to or fro that page. I'd like a rule that states a page must have at least 5 links to that page and from that page. There would be only exceptions such as songs. Its nice having a page for the history of the Marines and Marines but the page might as well be one. Nothing but the marine page links to the History of the Marines page and few people are likely to look it up. Plus I've noticed we're getting disorganised again. I know Joekido still wants us at 2,000 pages, but we can reach that easily so it won't matter if we sacrifice a few to improve information. Another page I picked up on is New World and Grand Line (which has just about as much info on it as New World anyway). Thoughts everyone? That is getting to be a serious issue. Right now, I'm looking at pages this way: If it doesn't fit into a template, do we really need it at all? (Templates automatically give you a number of links to and fro the page BTW).One-Winged Hawk 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I agree. Dead-end pages, orphaned pages and stubs are a problem. 2000 pages are a good goal, but we can reach it without creating them, since One Piece is an ongoing series and we'll have many new articles about new chapters, episodes, characters, locations etc. anyway. One good, well-written article is better then two bad, and more user-friendly. I'll support you. El Chupacabra 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I support that, well, except for character pages. Some, like, well, Hockera, have only the links from Achino Family and Ice Hunter Arc. But considering there IS a lot of text of the person, I wouldn't relay wanna see ANY mergers of characters. Well, maybe except for the Rolling Pirates , cause right now we MAY have enough for 2 stubs. User:New Babylon Why are people afraid of me? Anyway I will check up on the dead-end page list and see what I can do. Joekido 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :Not afraid... Its just you have a VERY strong voice, one thats impossible to ignore. Lol. :P One-Winged Hawk 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Interview on Arlong Park. Did anyone notice it? It went up 8 days ago. I'm just catching up with it now because I thought it was an old one (silly me). We need to grab the info thats of use off of this. One-Winged Hawk 13:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC) New rules Okay now this is getting stupid... First rule: Okay I want us to enact a rule that new pages cannot be created unless They have a template they can either go into or have created for them. We're getting page after page of things which don't link to and fro any articles (Joekido, you are guilty of this veyr much so). So we've got to stop this somehow. I don't care how... Second rule: Only named characters. Third rule: all pages must have 4 links to and fro the page. There is a reason for all this. Linked back to my previous "organisation" problems. We're getting worst, not better. I know Joekido wants us to reach a goal, but the goal can be reached without making dozens upon dozens of pointless pages that don't help us at all. We're missing 300+ chapters, 300+ episodes and 30 songs. The goal can be reached, there is no need to cheapen the wikia like this. One-Winged Hawk 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Man, cut me some slack "finds myself noose around my neck and someone yanks the rope" Goddammit Hey, I'm not pushing this site to 2,000 page because I don't care about it due to someone like you have to get stressed out and I'm just creating some page for other reason. Why do I need to argue with you? What's going on? Well if you want to fix the problem then go ahead and I'll just watch and once things gets better then I'll edit again and no this is not a time-limit challenge thing but my break to let you make things go smoothly without me crippling on it. However I only wanted to create an year page and categorize many uncategorized pages and remove pointless wanted pages and redirect some pages and merge some pages like you wanted. I'll do that, go ahead and do what you need to do. "Has a rocket up my ass, lit up by that fucker Christopher Paolini and blew me into space" Goddammit Joekido 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :I actually created a "unnamed filler marines page" and I'm still confident that it should exist. Mirrorbal Island Marine or Apis Arc Shosa who keeps bickering with Eric need some coverage. I agree that we can't have other unnamed characters pages though, unless they are VERY significant New Babylon 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC) The first rule might be inapplicable to some pages especially those who don't have a group template thought up in mind. Some characters, like newly introduced ones, might not belong to a template until the story reveals a grouping of some sort. The second rule might be a bit extreme in some situations. Pages of commonly seen people with no names are too much for this wikia, but I have no biff against lists of unnamed characters. The third rule is okay by me provided it shouldn't get in the way in some situations. For instance, a major new character is introduced and his page is created through one link. The character would get more links in the future depending on what the story has presented and what it will present. Bugging people for links for that character right away might be annoying. Lastly, does a page need to fulfill all of those rules or at least two. Fulfilling all three rules might be hard for some pages.Mugiwara Franky 03:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :I'm not saying lists are bad, just pages for single things without a name. I guess, 2 of 3 of those is enough, fulfilling all 3 would be too extreme. Even now, we have the last chapter revealing things about a page that has been around for about months. Finally we can link some things... One-Winged Hawk 10:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC) References Since its Christmas, lets make this week a little easy. There are a lot of pages around with a huge lack of references on them. Adding references is pretty simple compared to most edits around here. So may I suggest this week because of x-mas, we all take it easy and spend the week referencing things... We all know how right? Just ask if you don't. One-Winged Hawk 18:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)